How can you get along with a colleague who is better than Jordan, but beat and scold you?

He was ruthless in his rebuke of his colleagues. He held on to their mistakes and ridiculed their shortcomings. He has also beaten at least two colleagues.

These office problems dont belong to some perky securities trader or adrenaline rush bodyguard. They belong to Michael Jordan, the NBAs six time champion and a symbol of American popular culture. They are known as the greatest player.

Jordan also commented on his teammates in his documentary the last dance: I will mock you until you reach the same level as me. If not, it would be hell by my side.

Its been 17 years since Jordan retired (for the third time), and the strength and grace he showed on the pitch are still fascinating. But his style of leadership - though its been a long time - really feels old-fashioned.

In the years when the NBA didnt have him, many experts have warned employers, investors and board members not to tolerate such cruel or degrading behavior. Scholars and government officials have used words such as toxic employees or superstar harassers to warn people to be wary of employees who appear to be talented but have defects.

Every organization needs the principle of no asshole, because mean, narrow people can do great harm to victims, chain reaction affected bystanders, organizational performance, and themselves, wrote Robert Sutton, a professor of management at Stanford University, in his 2007 bestseller, the principle of no asshole.

When you look at Jordan in the last dance, you get a sense of ambivalence: the Bulls rule the league, but Jordan is always narrow-minded. He seems to be dismissive of his teammates migraine problems and uses the nickname fool or worse to refer to others.

His post match abuse is as easy as raising his hand and clapping his hands, and he complains, you cant make a damn mid shot all night. He seems to like to embarrass his teammates in front of the camera.

Its hard to know who to believe: experts? Or your lying eyes?

According to the study cited in Suttons book, the problem of toxic employees can be obvious or subtle. Their belligerence created costly interference. The way they treat their colleagues increases turnover and absenteeism. When demoralized colleagues appear in the workplace, they are apathetic.

In the 1970s, a classic study of Sears employees in Chicago found that employees who dont like their boss generally have the same attendance rate as their colleagues on normal working days, but in the event of Blizzard, their attendance rate will drop significantly, because they finally have a reason to stay at home.

It was later found that the former factory workers were far more likely to steal from the factory than the latter, according to the author, because they were determined to level off with seemingly ruthless leaders.

Despite this evidence, employers and investors often persuade themselves that the benefits of a toxic superstar outweigh the costs.

But in recent years, the argument has also become more difficult to confirm. In 2015, a study interviewed thousands of front-line employees, such as customer support experts, and found that the economic benefits of retaining the top 1% of toxic employees would be offset by additional staff turnover costs, with a ratio of more than 2:1. Employers would be much better off replacing these toxic stars with mediocre performers.

The documentary the last dance, Jordan is interviewed

At some level, this logic also applies to the bulls. In the season after Jordan retired for the first time in 1993, the Bulls won 55 games, only two games less than the previous year. Many bulls believe that the teams performance is related to better team atmosphere and less pressure.

But no matter how good the Bulls team work without Jordan, their strength is obviously not as good as Jordans still in time. I know we are competitive, BJ Armstrong said, but when it comes to a level of competition, you have to come up with an advantage. Michael can give us that advantage.

In his book, he also mentioned the example of Apple founder Steve Jobs, who, according to a colleague, once left a message to the CEO of a competitor: tell him that the Macintosh computer is so great that he may buy several for his children, even though it makes his own company bankrupt. And the rival company did go out of business a few years later.

Nevertheless, Suttons book continues to point out that while there may be some exceptions to the no jerk principle, they are often a dangerous illusion.

Dilan Meno, a part-time assistant professor at UCLA Anderson School of management, one of the authors of the 2015 study toxic employees, believes that bulls can still succeed under Jordans abuse, but only in response to cultural differences: unacceptable behaviors in one environment may be accepted or even respected in another.

For example, people are used to the behavior of some white men, but when it comes to women and people of color, they tend to receive more criticism.

At this point, Armstrong and Purdue both changed to deal with Jordan. He has no ulterior motive but to win, Armstrong said. If you only care about winning, its the best environment.

Purdue said that Jordan inspired his teammates to give the best performance by setting an example, and Jordans extraordinary performance lies in his ordinary. I was ready to fight back, and Eddie Nelly was behind me, he said. Then the fight ended abruptly, we went on training, he said.

But other NBA veterans questioned Jordans outburst, saying it was unacceptable. According to the book Jordans law, Jordan also accused Hollis grant of being too stupid to remember tactics.

Jeff Van Gundy, a former Knicks coach, said that even in the NBA in the 1990s, players who spoke like that would be branded with resentment..

Jordan is talented, energetic and hard-working. Despite his bad behavior, his net contribution to the team is still greater than that of any basketball player of his time.

He has to be at that level to lead the team that way, said Van Gundy, adding that for a player who is talented but not as good as Jordan, it can backfire.

In this sense, Jordan is like an outstanding founder of a start-up company. His contribution and influence to the early development of the company is so great that his personal shortcomings are dwarfed. David golden, who helps run the venture capital Department of revolution, commented. Revolution is the investment company of Steve case, co-founder of AOL.

Nevertheless, the application of this model in the business field may be limited. With the development of the company, smart but especially difficult technology entrepreneurs have a habit of expanding internal chaos.

Perhaps the most famous example is that Ubers early success, led by self righteous chief executive Travis kalanik, was ultimately defeated by what some investors call a harmful culture, because kalanik constantly clashed with regulators and failed to control sexual harassment.

In the early stages of a companys development, some flexibility, such as begging, borrowing, stealing, over promising and so on, may be important, golden said, but they are not usually the qualities that make you a good executive and manager.

If TA is really Michael Jordan among entrepreneurs, I might be on Michael Jordans side. Said Paul Arnold, founder of switchventures venture capital.

But considering that a person cant be unpredicted, Arnold said, when I find out that someone is an asshole, I will stay away from him.